Lowlight 2018:Continued underinvestment at MEL in international terminal capacity. There are plans, and small upgrades here and there, but seems to take forever to get anywhere near where they should be.Highlight 2018:QF launching MEL-SFO. Expected it to be UA first, but QF took the lead and launched it first, which in turn has finally got UA to announce starting service on the route in 2019.Predictions for 2019:- QF to announce PER-CDG, but only if their issues with the airport are resolved- QF to select the A350-1000ULR for Project Sunrise- QF/AA JV approved and significant changes to the network offering are announced. - Air Asia announce AVV-DMK (Bangkok)

Lowlight 2018:1) QF launching MEL-SFO. Expected it to be UA first, but QF took the lead and launched it first, which in turn has finally got UA to announce starting service on the route in 2019.Predictions for 2019:- 2) QF to announce PER-CDG, but only if their issues with the airport are resolved- 3) QF to select the A350-1000ULR for Project Sunrise- 4) QF/AA JV approved and significant changes to the network offering are announced. - 5) Air Asia announce AVV-DMK (Bangkok)

You are brave!1) So so, not really a highlight [IMHO NO QF flight to LAX, SFO or YVR from any East Coast capital city is a highlight, except HBA! Now that would be a *highlight*]2) I would have thought FRA would have been first, just my opinion.3) Brave, very brave4) Even braver5) Be interesting if it happens and maybe a portent for SWZ

I’m thinking a couple more A320s for QantaslinkTK to actually announce something with a date and a schedule by the end of the yearAVV - DMK (also predicted by IndianicWorld)VA to announce a new route to take advantage of the MAX capabilities (I’ll go out on a massive limb - a 2/3 days a week seasonal DRW-HKG - so long as the HX agreement stay in place)One of VA’s shareholders I think will blink and sell up by the end of the year, not game enough to predict who.NZ to add either CBR or HBAQF to announce PER-CDGVN MEL-HANTT to announce international to either NZ or the PacficCNS to possibly go from CX to KA

Out of interest, did anyone predict anything a little out there last year that came to fruition?

Lowlight 2018:1) QF launching MEL-SFO. Expected it to be UA first, but QF took the lead and launched it first, which in turn has finally got UA to announce starting service on the route in 2019.Predictions for 2019:- 2) QF to announce PER-CDG, but only if their issues with the airport are resolved- 3) QF to select the A350-1000ULR for Project Sunrise- 4) QF/AA JV approved and significant changes to the network offering are announced. - 5) Air Asia announce AVV-DMK (Bangkok)

You are brave!1) So so, not really a highlight [IMHO NO QF flight to LAX, SFO or YVR from any East Coast capital city is a highlight, except HBA! Now that would be a *highlight*]2) I would have thought FRA would have been first, just my opinion.3) Brave, very brave4) Even braver5) Be interesting if it happens and maybe a portent for SWZ

Gemuser

Highlights are subjective, and that’s how I saw it

As for being brave, who knows. Many are often so dependent on many factors. We all know that the QF/AA JV (likely around February apparently) and Project Sunrise winning bid are meant to be announced soon enough, so there is only 2 ways those can go.

As for QF from PER, the industry talk is more around CDG than FRA. Both are riskier propositions though, as they don’t have the same level of natural demand that LHR can generate.

Highlights:QF's initial 787 fleet delivery being completed by years end, with 6 more to be delivered in the following years.Beating UA to the MEL-SFO route.AVV 'having a go' by attracting D7 away from MEL

Lowlights:MEL underinvestmentVA shareholder drama (on top of the losses).

Predictions (combination of "Out of Left Field/Unlikely" and "realistic" predictions)* QF/AA JV finally approved * BNE-DFW x3 by AA (replacing the x3 QF BNE-LAX terminators)* BNE-PER-CDG late in the year (using the 7th and 8th aircraft of the 787 fleet - with 2x aircraft occupied on BNE-LAX-JFK and 2x aircraft on BNE-PER-CDG)* PER used as a "scissor hub" with the LHR and CDG flights arriving at the same time and a simple same terminal flight change for MEL and BNE passnegers

* One of VA's shareholders (possibly HNA) selling out before the end of the year - but stake may be to (dark-horse) China Eastern, perhaps influenced by both the Chinese Government and MU shareholder/VA USA JV partner - DL.* EY announcing divesting VA before the 2019 year ends, stake following HNA sell-off to MU. DL and NH (Blue Swan Daily September 2018 dark-horse) announced as the potential suitors.* VA announcing a "seasonal" short-haul international route before the end of the year with the MAXs, perhaps PER-AKL over the NS20-21 summer.* SQ will maintain their VA stake without increasing or decreasing, to maintain access to the AU JV and FF base. SQ along with Branson (minority stake) will remain "hands-off" in the day to day operations of VA.

* CNS for SQ group to go split dual brand ops. x3 MI flights announced as switching to TR, with MI/rebranded SQ short-haul operating the other x3.* CX swapped for KA for stand-alone CNS-HKG operations.

* SkyTeam also follows OneWorld and Star Alliance into introducing their connecting partners program before the year is out. 9W, VS and VA amongst the candidates for 'Connecting Partners' level. Allowing them to maintain code-share/JVs with those outside of SkyTeam.

I may as well add to my initial post and make a few intrim predictions too.

- QF/AA JV will be approved, AA will start MEL-LAX with QF starting SYD-ORD & BNE-DFW/SFO- QF will announce PER-CDG, starting around late 2019/early 2020- QF will upgrade PER-AKL from seasonal to year-round- VA & NH will sign a codeshare agreement- HBA will start negotiating international flights with VA or NZ to AKL- VA & QF will add more a320s to their WA ops- VA will handover a few trans-tasman & pacific routes to TT- QF will order the A350-1000ULR and a handful more 787s in the year.

* CNS for SQ group to go split dual brand ops. x3 MI flights announced as switching to TR, with MI/rebranded SQ short-haul operating the other x3.

Don't see this happening as it means that TR will most likely have to go 787 (don't think A320neo can make it but it's just me even with myself being an Airbus fan). Also SQ seems to minimise TR's presence in Australia to a few strongholds where there're enough passengers to divide the high/low end only for now.

Lowlights:What appears to be a fractious relationship between airlines and airports (a general statement only).Virgin withdrew the Embraer.Highlights:QF livery on a A320New indigenous livery on the 789The amount/time of computer modelling that went into setting up Perth/London direct.Predictions:Some have all ready been mentioned however I think QF will go Boeing for Project Sunrise.Virgin will continue to languish

remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back

Predictions for 2019:- QF to announce PER-CDG, but only if their issues with the airport are resolved

"Issues" with which airport, PER or CDG? I live in Paris so am quite interested in this possibility. The CDG - LHR5-LHR3-PER-MEL option I just took for Christmas visit was just a little too painful.

Certainly is PER with the airport authority recently took QF to court regarding the unpaid fees.

Obzerva wrote:

BAeRJ100 wrote:

There are rumours swirling of Q400's by mid-year, plus the introduction (or rather, RE-introduction - hint, hint) of Ejets at one of the regional airlines.

I'd imagine Ejet leases must be a little cheaper than what they were a few years ago.

It has to be with so many airlines ditching the first gen EJets, but the operating cost is quite high compared to its size - been mentioned multiple times that E190's cost per trip is, when factor in maintenance (and especially CF34 overhauls), as equally expensive as 738s. If this indeed happens, all I can say is good luck to them.

Can somebody explain how Qantas is supposed to launch all these new routes while at the same time replacing 9 747s with only 6 787s?

QF have ordered 14 in total, so an easy replacement. QF15/16 has already swapped to the 789, while QF have added an extra 3-4x weekly BNE-LAX-BNE as QF55/56 depending on the time of year to make up for the drop in capacity of the 789 has over the 744.

Air China in recent inventory update closed reservation for service between Shanghai and Australia, for travel on/after 31MAR19. The Star Alliance member currently serves Shanghai Pu Dong – Melbourne and Shanghai Pu Dong – Sydney route. As of 02JAN19, all flights on/after 31MAR19 is showing 0 in the inventory.

Can somebody explain how Qantas is supposed to launch all these new routes while at the same time replacing 9 747s with only 6 787s?

QF have ordered 14 in total, so an easy replacement. QF15/16 has already swapped to the 789, while QF have added an extra 3-4x weekly BNE-LAX-BNE as QF55/56 depending on the time of year to make up for the drop in capacity of the 789 has over the 744.

8 of the 14 787s to which you refer are already fully committed.

There are 9 747s left in the fleet.

There are only 6 more 787s coming.

Replacing existing 747s with fewer 787s by increasing utilization might work (albeit with reduced capacity) but people keep talking about adding CDG, FRA, ORD, and SEA. How is that supposed to work?

7 (extra BNE-LAX) and 8 (BNE/SYD/MEL-HKG) are really only short term solutions until the AA/QF JV is either approved (or not approved). SEA was only mentioned as an option should the AA JV not be approved (connecting to a AS hub - a QF partner).

Thus the talk of ORD/DFW or alternatively SEA (or SFO) for the 7th and 8th BNE frames (replacing the x3-x4 BNE-LAX terminators), or even the unlikely scenario of BNE-PER-CDG & v.v.

Having been in Perth for the first time for New year break I’ve to say Perth is probably the most underrated city in Australia.

The beach there is the phenomenal with brilliant sunshine like you see in LA.I guess the problem is the beauty isn't well known overseas and people still see Perth as a simple mining town.

Perth will need to put more effort on PR and I believe this will able to attract tourists and more routes can be sustained.

People like to bag Perth because they can

Perth is lovely. It's one draw back is it's a long way from anywhere. I see that the QF LHR will be really helpful for WA tourism as makes it a convenient stop for a few days for those heading east.

Perth is a nice place to visit and you can easily spend 3 days looking at the sights around the city. The problem of course if that WA is so vast you can't use Perth as a base if you want to see other parts of the state. Even Margaret River is a 3 hour drive with other tourist potentials such as Monkey Mia being a few day trip and Broome being the equivalent of SYD-CNS.

The questions for PER-CDG revolve around 2 key points. 1. Is O&D sufficient to support the route? LHR is a bit different with a significant number of UK expats based in WA c.f. very few French. You can't justify the route on connecting pax who all have an existing one-stop option from other mainland capitals on QF using the EK partnership which may be faster or more convenient. QFFs also have one-stop options to CDG on CX and QR.2. Is there sufficient demand in premium cabins? QF have quite a premium heavy configuration on their 789s so business travel support may be more key than tourists.

Perth is lovely. It's one draw back is it's a long way from anywhere. I see that the QF LHR will be really helpful for WA tourism as makes it a convenient stop for a few days for those heading east.

Perth is a nice place to visit and you can easily spend 3 days looking at the sights around the city. The problem of course if that WA is so vast you can't use Perth as a base if you want to see other parts of the state. Even Margaret River is a 3 hour drive with other tourist potentials such as Monkey Mia being a few day trip and Broome being the equivalent of SYD-CNS.

The questions for PER-CDG revolve around 2 key points. 1. Is O&D sufficient to support the route? LHR is a bit different with a significant number of UK expats based in WA c.f. very few French. You can't justify the route on connecting pax who all have an existing one-stop option from other mainland capitals on QF using the EK partnership which may be faster or more convenient. QFFs also have one-stop options to CDG on CX and QR.2. Is there sufficient demand in premium cabins? QF have quite a premium heavy configuration on their 789s so business travel support may be more key than tourists.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

AJ has said SIN-LHR would remain once the direct SYD and MEL to LHR begin, basically for those pax who will never consider flying non stop to Europe.

There is also the issue that the non-stop birds will be premium heavy. Unless QF are prepared to give up a significant Y market, they need to keep the A380s and maybe eventually replace them with something like A359 or 779 to continue to serve the one-stop market. QF has 2 additional slot pairs for LHR that they currently lease out so adding capacity into LHR remains possible.

By the time Sunrise comes into existence the EK partnership will again have come up for renewal. The whole planning may change if either party chooses to not extend the arrangement or if the arrangement extension is knocked back by competition authorities. I am sometimes a bit puzzled as to where this relationship is at. I have done several bookings into Europe on QF recently and, in every case, the QF website put the code-shared services down the list of available flights even though they were both quicker and cheaper....maybe I'm just being cynical.

Perth is lovely. It's one draw back is it's a long way from anywhere. I see that the QF LHR will be really helpful for WA tourism as makes it a convenient stop for a few days for those heading east.

Perth is a nice place to visit and you can easily spend 3 days looking at the sights around the city. The problem of course if that WA is so vast you can't use Perth as a base if you want to see other parts of the state. Even Margaret River is a 3 hour drive with other tourist potentials such as Monkey Mia being a few day trip and Broome being the equivalent of SYD-CNS.

The questions for PER-CDG revolve around 2 key points. 1. Is O&D sufficient to support the route? LHR is a bit different with a significant number of UK expats based in WA c.f. very few French. You can't justify the route on connecting pax who all have an existing one-stop option from other mainland capitals on QF using the EK partnership which may be faster or more convenient. QFFs also have one-stop options to CDG on CX and QR.2. Is there sufficient demand in premium cabins? QF have quite a premium heavy configuration on their 789s so business travel support may be more key than tourists.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

Given the above re CDG/FRA would CPT be back on the table if QF ceded it had to operate from the actual intl terminal?

Having been in Perth for the first time for New year break I’ve to say Perth is probably the most underrated city in Australia.

The beach there is the phenomenal with brilliant sunshine like you see in LA.I guess the problem is the beauty isn't well known overseas and people still see Perth as a simple mining town.

Perth will need to put more effort on PR and I believe this will able to attract tourists and more routes can be sustained.

Perth is absolutely lovely, but it's also the most remote big city on the planet. You can't do much else than what the city offers. In Melbourne you can do the Great Ocean Road, Philip Island, loads of other things around Port Philip Bay. In Brisbane you have the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast just around the corner, and so on. In Perth, if you want to do stuff outside the city, you basically have to drive 8 hours or whatever to get to Shark Bay or similar. Just nuts.

Today’s domestic legs of QF9/10 are being subbed by a 738, QF10 has been delayed to 1900

Such a poor passenger experience for those MEL pax, particularly J and W pax... I realise it must be unavoidable but surely better to sub an A330 at least or just cancel the MEL-PER leg and move them to other domestic flights...

Today’s domestic legs of QF9/10 are being subbed by a 738, QF10 has been delayed to 1900

Such a poor passenger experience for those MEL pax, particularly J and W pax... I realise it must be unavoidable but surely better to sub an A330 at least or just cancel the MEL-PER leg and move them to other domestic flights...

I would assume that QF might rebook some J pax into available 330 flights (ie qf768 departing an hr later) potentially allowing W travellers to be bumped up to domestic J for the sector. I think Service Recovery was one of the extra perks in having this flight through PER getting passengers home faster and less chance of further delays down line. Compare this to SIN or DXB when there are not alot of options available to the airline if the SHTF.

Today’s domestic legs of QF9/10 are being subbed by a 738, QF10 has been delayed to 1900

Such a poor passenger experience for those MEL pax, particularly J and W pax... I realise it must be unavoidable but surely better to sub an A330 at least or just cancel the MEL-PER leg and move them to other domestic flights...

It's not like A330s are not fully utilised or have active standby planes either with the international seasonal frequencies in full swing. If you pull an A330 you're most likely downgauging another PER-East Coast flight (like QF768 for example) which in turn inconveniencing a lot of people booked on that flight. Rather than making two groups of pax unhappy it's better to confine the issue to one group.

Ps. despite the lightning strike and subsequent grounding tonight's QF49 is still operating with VH-ZNG. Good thing when you have a little bit of wigging room in the fleet!

AJ has said SIN-LHR would remain once the direct SYD and MEL to LHR begin, basically for those pax who will never consider flying non stop to Europe.

There is also the issue that the non-stop birds will be premium heavy. Unless QF are prepared to give up a significant Y market, they need to keep the A380s and maybe eventually replace them with something like A359 or 779 to continue to serve the one-stop market. QF has 2 additional slot pairs for LHR that they currently lease out so adding capacity into LHR remains possible.

By the time Sunrise comes into existence the EK partnership will again have come up for renewal. The whole planning may change if either party chooses to not extend the arrangement or if the arrangement extension is knocked back by competition authorities. I am sometimes a bit puzzled as to where this relationship is at. I have done several bookings into Europe on QF recently and, in every case, the QF website put the code-shared services down the list of available flights even though they were both quicker and cheaper....maybe I'm just being cynical.

I didn't like to pry too much in the conversation and was surprised it was so open.

I was slightly surprised by SIN-LHR comments because I recall AJ saying the same. Equally though, being cynical, I also heard AJ say Dubai was the future and all sorts of things he apparently no longer thinks. I don't think QF has much love for Y pax to Europe, they've already significantly cut back Y capacity to LHR, we'll see. I don't know anymore than was said above.

I can't see any reason why QF would want to keep the A380s. Even if SIN-LHR stays it would only need a smaller jet post Sunrise, Asia is now a frequency market and US is splintering in favour of long/thin routes. I can see all of those missions suit a modern twin jet. QF have said publicly they are potentially looking for the Sunrise jet to replace to A380s since my beers.

qantas747 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Today’s domestic legs of QF9/10 are being subbed by a 738, QF10 has been delayed to 1900

Such a poor passenger experience for those MEL pax, particularly J and W pax... I realise it must be unavoidable but surely better to sub an A330 at least or just cancel the MEL-PER leg and move them to other domestic flights...

I would assume that QF might rebook some J pax into available 330 flights (ie qf768 departing an hr later) potentially allowing W travellers to be bumped up to domestic J for the sector. I think Service Recovery was one of the extra perks in having this flight through PER getting passengers home faster and less chance of further delays down line. Compare this to SIN or DXB when there are not alot of options available to the airline if the SHTF.

Is it just me or does the domestic sector of that flight get cancelled more than typically? This is a question, I don't really know.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

Thanks. Agree the relationship between the airport and the airline seems particularly terrible right now. I guess they are both at an inflection point, and whatever gets agreed will have significant consequences. The only thing i don't get - is given qantas have the current terminal for at least 5 or so years (likely more) and they have their own international terminal thanks to the 14 million contribution from wa taxpayers (and the federal govt coming on board to provide immi and customs staff), nothing should be stopping them from announcing CDG if thats what they actually want to do? They have the set up that they want, at least for the medium term. If they didn't launch CDG because the numbers didn't work out that would be understandable. But if the real motivations were that they wanted to play hardball with the airport, well that's a very bad outcome for WA taxpayers. As an aside, I wouldn't have thought they would launch CDG until peak season - so that would be the 2020 northern summer...so that gives them at least some time.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

Thanks. Agree the relationship between the airport and the airline seems particularly terrible right now. I guess they are both at an inflection point, and whatever gets agreed will have significant consequences. The only thing i don't get - is given qantas have the current terminal for at least 5 or so years (likely more) and they have their own international terminal thanks to the 14 million contribution from wa taxpayers (and the federal govt coming on board to provide immi and customs staff), nothing should be stopping them from announcing CDG if thats what they actually want to do? They have the set up that they want, at least for the medium term. If they didn't launch CDG because the numbers didn't work out that would be understandable. But if the real motivations were that they wanted to play hardball with the airport, well that's a very bad outcome for WA taxpayers. As an aside, I wouldn't have thought they would launch CDG until peak season - so that would be the 2020 northern summer...so that gives them at least some time.

I live in Paris and have, due to QFF status, been holding out for QF to come back after they dropped the EK/DXB connections with QF1 and 9 A380 services. I just came back from Australia on the QF/AF code share from MEL and SIN. I was put off this at first as the QF website calculates virtually no points or status credits for the longer AF (14hr) leg. After discussion with QFF centre and CSM on the flight, they are adamant that I will receive full status and points credit. We shall see in the next two weeks or so if the full credit arrives. If so, this AF / QF codeshare works well for me, as AF's new J is top notch and increasingly QF have the new J or if an A380 I can use points for an upgrade to F. 787-9 BNE-PER-CDG may or may not be an improvement.

I live in Paris and have, due to QFF status, been holding out for QF to come back after they dropped the EK/DXB connections with QF1 and 9 A380 services. I just came back from Australia on the QF/AF code share from MEL and SIN. I was put off this at first as the QF website calculates virtually no points or status credits for the longer AF (14hr) leg. After discussion with QFF centre and CSM on the flight, they are adamant that I will receive full status and points credit. We shall see in the next two weeks or so if the full credit arrives. If so, this AF / QF codeshare works well for me, as AF's new J is top notch and increasingly QF have the new J or if an A380 I can use points for an upgrade to F. 787-9 BNE-PER-CDG may or may not be an improvement.

Were you on QF flight numbers for the Air France flight? If so, as far as I am aware, the information you have been given by the call centre and the CSM is correct. You should earn full Qantas points and status credits.

AJ has said SIN-LHR would remain once the direct SYD and MEL to LHR begin, basically for those pax who will never consider flying non stop to Europe.

There is also the issue that the non-stop birds will be premium heavy. Unless QF are prepared to give up a significant Y market, they need to keep the A380s and maybe eventually replace them with something like A359 or 779 to continue to serve the one-stop market. QF has 2 additional slot pairs for LHR that they currently lease out so adding capacity into LHR remains possible.

By the time Sunrise comes into existence the EK partnership will again have come up for renewal. The whole planning may change if either party chooses to not extend the arrangement or if the arrangement extension is knocked back by competition authorities. I am sometimes a bit puzzled as to where this relationship is at. I have done several bookings into Europe on QF recently and, in every case, the QF website put the code-shared services down the list of available flights even though they were both quicker and cheaper....maybe I'm just being cynical.

I didn't like to pry too much in the conversation and was surprised it was so open.

I was slightly surprised by SIN-LHR comments because I recall AJ saying the same. Equally though, being cynical, I also heard AJ say Dubai was the future and all sorts of things he apparently no longer thinks. I don't think QF has much love for Y pax to Europe, they've already significantly cut back Y capacity to LHR, we'll see. I don't know anymore than was said above.

I can't see any reason why QF would want to keep the A380s. Even if SIN-LHR stays it would only need a smaller jet post Sunrise, Asia is now a frequency market and US is splintering in favour of long/thin routes. I can see all of those missions suit a modern twin jet. QF have said publicly they are potentially looking for the Sunrise jet to replace to A380s since my beers.

qantas747 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

Such a poor passenger experience for those MEL pax, particularly J and W pax... I realise it must be unavoidable but surely better to sub an A330 at least or just cancel the MEL-PER leg and move them to other domestic flights...

I would assume that QF might rebook some J pax into available 330 flights (ie qf768 departing an hr later) potentially allowing W travellers to be bumped up to domestic J for the sector. I think Service Recovery was one of the extra perks in having this flight through PER getting passengers home faster and less chance of further delays down line. Compare this to SIN or DXB when there are not alot of options available to the airline if the SHTF.

Is it just me or does the domestic sector of that flight get cancelled more than typically? This is a question, I don't really know.

On a asset basis the A380's represent 25% of the value of the QF assets. It would be financial suicide to retire these aircraft early. As such, love them or hate them, they won't be going anywhere soon.

I can see some of the A380 aircraft being transferred to SE Asia, South America and South African routes.

From where I sit I could see QF operating another 4-6 aircraft. The A380 would give QF almost instant capacity into key markets.

If the aircraft could be leveraged with 787-8/9/10 aircraft at key hubs they could still be used to destinations in Europe.

The key is developing market share in SE Asia to support the size of the aircraft.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

Thanks. Agree the relationship between the airport and the airline seems particularly terrible right now. I guess they are both at an inflection point, and whatever gets agreed will have significant consequences. The only thing i don't get - is given qantas have the current terminal for at least 5 or so years (likely more) and they have their own international terminal thanks to the 14 million contribution from wa taxpayers (and the federal govt coming on board to provide immi and customs staff), nothing should be stopping them from announcing CDG if thats what they actually want to do? They have the set up that they want, at least for the medium term. If they didn't launch CDG because the numbers didn't work out that would be understandable. But if the real motivations were that they wanted to play hardball with the airport, well that's a very bad outcome for WA taxpayers. As an aside, I wouldn't have thought they would launch CDG until peak season - so that would be the 2020 northern summer...so that gives them at least some time.

I live in Paris and have, due to QFF status, been holding out for QF to come back after they dropped the EK/DXB connections with QF1 and 9 A380 services. I just came back from Australia on the QF/AF code share from MEL and SIN. I was put off this at first as the QF website calculates virtually no points or status credits for the longer AF (14hr) leg. After discussion with QFF centre and CSM on the flight, they are adamant that I will receive full status and points credit. We shall see in the next two weeks or so if the full credit arrives. If so, this AF / QF codeshare works well for me, as AF's new J is top notch and increasingly QF have the new J or if an A380 I can use points for an upgrade to F. 787-9 BNE-PER-CDG may or may not be an improvement.

Qantas Frequent Flyer points earning is based on the marketing carrier and not the operating carrier. If a flight is ticketed with a QF flight number then it earns 100% points, status credits and status bonus, and counts towards loyalty bonus, PlatinumOne etc. This is irrespective of who the operating carrier is. The inverse is also true, a Qantas flight ticketed with a CZ flight number will earn nada even though you are flying on a Qantas plane.

So the short answer is that if you booked the CDG-SIN flight as QF4222 then you are home and hosed, but if you booked it as AF256 then you'll earn bugger all.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

Thanks. Agree the relationship between the airport and the airline seems particularly terrible right now. I guess they are both at an inflection point, and whatever gets agreed will have significant consequences. The only thing i don't get - is given qantas have the current terminal for at least 5 or so years (likely more) and they have their own international terminal thanks to the 14 million contribution from wa taxpayers (and the federal govt coming on board to provide immi and customs staff), nothing should be stopping them from announcing CDG if thats what they actually want to do? They have the set up that they want, at least for the medium term. If they didn't launch CDG because the numbers didn't work out that would be understandable. But if the real motivations were that they wanted to play hardball with the airport, well that's a very bad outcome for WA taxpayers. As an aside, I wouldn't have thought they would launch CDG until peak season - so that would be the 2020 northern summer...so that gives them at least some time.

It's Perth Airport that are preventing them from using the T4 international facilities for further international expansion. Don't forget that QF planned to launch PER-CPT this summer but decided against it after Perth Airport told them that the route must be operated from the international terminal. The details are very vague, and I'm sure that the actual contract is a bit of a lawyer's picnic, but as far as Perth Airport is concerned QF are only allowed to operate flights to SIN, AKL and LHR from T4 and all other destinations must operate from the international terminal. QF will only launch new international routes if they can be operated from T4. Given the current state of relations there is no grounds for negotiating an outcome, so international expansion at Perth is on hold indefinitely.

For what it's worth I had drinks with people close to the Perth hub strategy about six months ago. Gist of it was that it's hard to see CDG or FRA being launched in the short to medium term, although they're happy with how LHR has worked. QF would like CDG and FRA from PER, but without the current terminal set up they think it would be unworkable. So until the relationship with Perth Airport improves nothing will get launched and no one thinks that relationship will improve soon. I got the impression QF and Perth Airport's relationship has completely broken down.

Also they said word on the street is that AJ will leave shortly after Project Sunrise starts flying (which is the bigger priority than CDG/FRA) and that a new CEO will probably bring new thinking which might or might not favour more flights to Europe from Perth. So unless the Perth Airport situation changes and the routes get launched before AJ goes, there's no certainty that senior level support for launching them will exist into the future.

The other tid bits were that SIN-LHR would go with Project Sunrise and that ideally Project Sunrise jets would also replace the A380s network wide with fewer passengers funnelled through LAX and more direct flights to 'secondary' US cities.

I don't know how up to date that all is now, but it was the gist of it then.

Thanks. Agree the relationship between the airport and the airline seems particularly terrible right now. I guess they are both at an inflection point, and whatever gets agreed will have significant consequences. The only thing i don't get - is given qantas have the current terminal for at least 5 or so years (likely more) and they have their own international terminal thanks to the 14 million contribution from wa taxpayers (and the federal govt coming on board to provide immi and customs staff), nothing should be stopping them from announcing CDG if thats what they actually want to do? They have the set up that they want, at least for the medium term. If they didn't launch CDG because the numbers didn't work out that would be understandable. But if the real motivations were that they wanted to play hardball with the airport, well that's a very bad outcome for WA taxpayers. As an aside, I wouldn't have thought they would launch CDG until peak season - so that would be the 2020 northern summer...so that gives them at least some time.

It's Perth Airport that are preventing them from using the T4 international facilities for further international expansion. Don't forget that QF planned to launch PER-CPT this summer but decided against it after Perth Airport told them that the route must be operated from the international terminal. The details are very vague, and I'm sure that the actual contract is a bit of a lawyer's picnic, but as far as Perth Airport is concerned QF are only allowed to operate flights to SIN, AKL and LHR from T4 and all other destinations must operate from the international terminal. QF will only launch new international routes if they can be operated from T4. Given the current state of relations there is no grounds for negotiating an outcome, so international expansion at Perth is on hold indefinitely.

Was it CPT? Or JNB?

I think there is a lot more to this story that both sides aren’t will to publically discuss. Curious how it all comes out in the wash.

I think there is a lot more to this story that both sides aren’t will to publically discuss. Curious how it all comes out in the wash.

When in the integrated Perth terminals due to be completed?

I think it was JNB

Naturally there is more to the story and I think the dispute regarding airport fees which we didn't know about when the JNB route was deferred feeds into the whole plot. At some point, both will sort out their differences as they both rely on each other; it is the ultimate symbiotic relationship.

I believe the integrated terminals are scheduled for completion in 2025 though not sure if that includes the new runway.